Re: Re[8]: [PATCH v3] mfd: syscon: Add non-DT support

From: Dong Aisheng
Date: Wed Feb 20 2013 - 06:28:46 EST

On 20 February 2013 19:14, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 February 2013, Dong Aisheng wrote:
>> On 20 February 2013 18:06, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > I would first like to get an answer to the question I asked in my first mail,
>> > which is what the use case of non-DT support in this driver is. If this
>> > is used only by a new platform that has to use DT anyway, or by an existing
>> > platform that is easy enough to convert, we probably shouldn't do all this
>> > at all.
>> >
>> If the platform can convert to dt, then we do not have such issue.
>> The question is do we allow the existing non-dt platforms to use it
>> before converting?
> I think the answer to that is "it depends". It's basically a question of
> how much work it would be to convert the platforms that need it over to
> DT, and how much of the interface it actually needs. E.g. if there is
> only one in-tree platform that needs to use syscon but can't easily be
> moved over to DT, but that platform can only have a single syscon device,
> then we don't need any of the matching support but could simply return
> the first regmap area we have in the list.
> Of course, if the platform in question is out of tree, I would argue
> that the whatever patches are needed by that platform should also
> remain out of tree.

Basically i agree with your point.
Alexander seems to be the first non-dt user of syscon driver.
He may answer whether they could choose to convert to dt first.
But one question i wonder is that it may be hard to know how many poteintial
non-dt platforms may use syscon.

Dong Aisheng
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at